Jump to content

Newcastle v Liverpool


Kid Dynamite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 367
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Presume it's more to do with this happening after already been done for racism. Plus presumably it needs to be more than the previous ban he got for biting in the Netherlands.

 

Aye, I agree. Can't really argue against the ban or the length of it to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biting > racial abuse > dangerous tackling

 

According to this season.

 

If the biting had happened first, then the racial abuse, I reckon you could change the order of that.

 

Handing out 8 game bans for dangerous tackling is never going to happen because of the inherent risk of a dangerous tackle happening during general play. Biting and racism is completely and easily avoidable and deserves much longer bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2010/11 - 7 match ban

2011/12 - 9 match ban

2012/13 - 10 match ban

 

I'd put the length of the ban down to a few factors. He's done it before, he's been a high profile miscreant ever since he joined Liverpool, he brings the game into disrepute on almost a monthly basis (be it diving, kicking, biting or racism), but above all this I think the punishment isn't for the act of biting, but for the lack of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suarez out then, they will still be dangerous with Sturridge. Maybe even more so with the whole "fuck the FA" attitude.

 

We really need to convert any chances we get this week, as too many times we have paid the price for missed chances this season. At vital times aswell, probably why our goal scored is so poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some classic reactions on RAWK.

 

Take them to court.

 

This country doesn't deserve a player that gives everything. Come on Bayern put the lad out of his misery.

 

Insane decision, racist c*nts
Edited by ewerk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the biting had happened first, then the racial abuse, I reckon you could change the order of that.

 

Handing out 8 game bans for dangerous tackling is never going to happen because of the inherent risk of a dangerous tackle happening during general play. Biting and racism is completely and easily avoidable and deserves much longer bans.

This is the crux of it tbh. That tackle on Hiadara was dangerous and obviously could have caused a lot more problems to him than Ivanovic could ever get from being bitten but while I think the tackle was wild it wasn't intended. You can't accidently bite someone. He intended to do it (however heat of the moment it was) and he's done it before. He deserves everything he gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.